Take meteors, earthquakes, volcanoes: 100 years ago I'd have to concede that atheists had a pretty good point back then, what greater good possibly comes from such pointless random destruction? Now of course we know these things are utterly essential to the formation, support and renewal of our habitat.

Just a tip. You might give us your sources on this stuff. Otherwise we might start thinking you are a bit looney.

Logged

Anyone can beat around the bush. But unless you have permission from the bush, you probably shouldn't.

I didn't include the Big Bang, because as above, that was not an atheistic theory, quite the opposite.

First of all, you aren't allowed to make generic statements like this, expecting us to roll over and play dead after reading them, without adequate explanation as to where you are coming from. Abbreviated lists that sound like they came out of a Wikipedia article don't count.

Quote

atheist theories as listed explicitly strive to support atheism- usually in some form of 'no creation= no creator' Whereas the concept of a specific creation event was heresy to academics 100 years ago- explicitly for the obvious theistic implications, they overwhelming preferred static models - and were forced to move to cyclical and infinite ones, none have yet stood up to the rigors of science

I have never heard an atheist adhere to any "atheist theories". Nobody here in the many years I've been around has ever said "because of theory A or theory B, we have proof that there is no god." Never. We don't think like that. Reasoning, by definition, requires a lot more flexibility that you are giving us credit for.

Your argument is with atheist academics, they are the ones who identified the primordial atom with it's theistic implications and rejected it on this basis. (Lemaitre was the one taking the less dogmatic-more scientific approach - that this had nothing to do with preferred outcomes) Hawking for one similarly, in his own words, describes his theories (including debunked big crunch) as making god redundant- his word not mine! I've rarely heard other like Krauss, Dawkins say anything without relating to supporting their personal beliefs?

Quote

I understand where you're coming from, but by that same rationale I could say I have no faith either, no assertions that require being backed up by science, because I simply lack faith in atheism through lack of evidence for it- I'll believe in a spontaneous/ automated/ purposeless/ unintelligent universe creating mechanism when sufficient evidence is provided, till then I default to a work of creative intelligence

You could say that, but you'd probably get a queazy feeling in your tummy. Your religion demands faith. I'm pretty sure you aren't going to rely on anything else to the exclusion of that.

Quote

But I do not say this because I freely admit my assertion, I am quite happy to provide what I think are good reasons to believe in God, not just good reasons to be skeptical of atheism.

You might concentrate on that part. You are don't too well making up why we are atheists, because the only thing you are responding to is your version of us, not the real thing.

Added is the reply I was typing up when you submitted the above. There is some repetition of content. Live with it:

I'm calling atheism a faith as in an unproven belief, the same faith many of those academics had and still have. Only theirs led them to misunderstand the fundamental nature of the entire universe. Lemaitre's didn't.

You're not allowed to redefine atheism for your own nefarious purposes. We don't believe. Our reasons are many, but do not require a specific scientific position. Again, you are too big on the frickin' science part.

You guys are the ones that can't prove that there is a god. And then you define me as a person of faith (of the negative variety) because you and I don't agree and because the word "faith" is of so much importance to you. You see it as universal, apparently. It isn't.

I retreated from religion because the concept of "faith" in the context in which you use it is silly. All god concepts require "faith" and "belief". Why does your god use the same strategy as the sky god "Igwekaala", worshipped by the Alusi? And don't go saying that they were just calling your god by a different name, because they also worshipped Ikenga, the god of fortune, Idemmili, (a mother goddess), Agwu, god of medicine, Njoku Ji, the god yams, etc. They are believed in by people who have faith.

It's an almost universal tendency, yes. Almost in the sense that atheists don't have any. So you can't say all people have it.

So, leave the science out of the discussion and accept that there are lots of reason for being an atheist. Unlike you and the one god concept, we don't need one overarching reason. That is not a component of what atheism is. Yes, many of us think that science supports our stands. But not at the faith-belief level.

And a suggestion: don't knock science too much. If it ever ends up proving there is a god, you'll have to reverse positions on the subject and that will be kind of awkward.

I don't knock science at all, I'm a huge fan. it has debunked every testable atheist model for the universe so far and supported all the major predictions of theism. I knock atheist academics who use dogma, not science to operate on preconceived conclusions about the ultimate nature of the universe-

You make a lot of good points that deserve an answer and I'd much rather do this than work!- but must run, will respond later- appreciate the civil debate

I think denying faith, claiming supreme knowledge, intellectual superiority is where it gets dangerous when applied to any belief, theistic or atheistic?-

Are you saying that denying faith equates to a claim of supreme knowledge?

Atheism is not a belief - it's simply an acknowledgement of the logical implications that there is no convincing evidence for the existence of gods. And the fun part of atheism is analysing the bizarre behaviours and excusiology of theists claiming to be in possession of supreme knowledge I don't see how poking fun at theists and shredding their books and beliefs with reason is "dangerous".

As I posted in other answers here, the only major cosmonogical theory that ever held up to scientific scrutiny, was the one presented by a priest and ridiculed by academia for it's overt theistic implications. They preferred static (no creation=no creator) models. 'Big Bang' was coined by Hoyle to discredit the idea, and he never accepted the truth.

Sure, initially academics are wont to reject an 'upstart' hypothesis, as happened with plate tectonics too. But when the evidence adds up. The hypothesis will become an accepted theory. As happened with both the big bang and plate tectonics. The fact that the first guy to come up with the big bang was a priest is irrelevant. If the data adds up, then it adds up, regardless of who came up with it.

Once the static model was disproven, many other atheistic theories followed, steady state, big crunch, all claiming to make God redundant and all being disproven by observation. No coincidence that leading atheist theories now reside inherently beyond any inconvenience of scientific scrutiny.

I have yet to come across a single theory that was constructed for the express purpose of making god(s) redundant. Usually, it's the theists that refuse to accept a theory because it contradicts their beliefs.

How did this 'thing' create the universe?Why did this 'thing' create the universe?When did this 'thing' create the universe?Who/what created the ' thing?Is this thing still around? Or did it lose interest and wander off?

What? The singularity?1) it went Bang2) There is no why .3) 13.8 billion years ago4) unknown (some sort of quantum fluctuation has been suggested, but not confirmed)5) No, it went bang, remember? For the singularity to lose interest, it would have to have a mind ... nothing points towards it having a mind.

yet here we are, but what I do not see as even is the ability of creative intelligence v. blind chance to create our universe.

The probability of us being here on this planet is 100% ... cause here we are. If you were to rewind time 13.8 billion years and set things in motion again, the chances of an identical Fiji typing these same words is virutally 0.

Logged

Science: I'll believe it when I see itFaith: I'll see it when I believe it

I don't knock science at all, I'm a huge fan. it has debunked every testable atheist model for the universe so far and supported all the major predictions of theism. I knock atheist academics who use dogma, not science to operate on preconceived conclusions about the ultimate nature of the universe-

You make a lot of good points that deserve an answer and I'd much rather do this than work!- but must run, will respond later- appreciate the civil debate

When you get back, you might fill us in on the atheist models of the universe that we are supposedly so enthralled by. But if that is the basis of your argument, you kind of need to find a site where atheists that dependent on said theories reside. I don't think that there are any here.

Logged

Anyone can beat around the bush. But unless you have permission from the bush, you probably shouldn't.

But it's you who attaches the baggage, I think faith is a very good thing. I think denying faith, claiming supreme knowledge, intellectual superiority is where it gets dangerous when applied to any belief, theistic or atheistic?-

I'm unsure I understand what you mean by the word 'faith' in this context.

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

I think faith is a double-edged sword that requires substantial skill to wield safely.

Inasmuch as outcomes confirm our trust (e.g., a friend offers to borrow his dad's pickup truck to help us move house, and he shows up as promised), faith strengthens bonds and goodwill.

However, when faith is repeatedly smacked down by reality (e.g., parents try to pray away a child's illness rather than take him to the Emergency Room, and the child dies), it is most certainly not a good thing at all.

Quote

I think denying faith, claiming supreme knowledge, intellectual superiority {emphasis Mine} is where it gets dangerous when applied to any belief, theistic or atheistic?

This is a strawman argument. It is quite possible to simply lack faith without making any such claims.

I think the Phoenix feather core wand is inferior to a Veela hair wand. I can think of a lot more things, I have the freedom of thinking whatever I want. What I think is irrelevant in this context. Why I think so is what would help.

That's what Astreja did in her reply above, she told us the 'why'. You can learn from her or keep giving random impertinent 'thoughts'.

Quote

I think denying faith, claiming supreme knowledge, intellectual superiority is where it gets dangerous when applied to any belief, theistic or atheistic?-

From this sentence I get the feeling that you don't know what faith, supreme knowledge and intellectual superiority really means.

Can faith be denied? Or is it renounced?What is wrong in having intellectual superiority? Should we be having intellectual uniformity?What is supreme knowledge? Can you identify an atheist who claims to have supreme knowledge? (with some valid source)

It is a vast majority that have, as I said, come to the same conclusion that the world around us is the work of a creative intelligence. Obviously you have subsets within that majority, down to any two people standing next to each other in any church who will find something to disagree on.

Similarly atheists have had countless versions of static, eternal, steady state, multiverse, M theory, string theory creation stories to debate and none of us can prove any of them! That's why I acknowledge my faith, do you yours?

I certainly agree consensus is not science, although a consensus of 'mankind' is the only non partisan one!

Hi Guy, Welcome to WWGHAF. We appreciate that you are brave enough to be here - though it may be short-lived, as is so often the case.

What you have just demonstrated above is called a Straw Man argument. You have misrepresented what atheism is. Atheism is NOT a positive claim regarding the universe (that would be something entirely different). It deals with a single question on a single claim. Atheism is - simply put - the lack of a belief in a god or gods. That's it! So just like "aSanta-Clausism" would be the lack of belief in Santa Claus, atheism is merely the lack of belief in any deities. It a the rejection of theistic claims which have failed to meet their burden of proof. That is all.

Btw, atheism is NOT the positive claim "there is no god" either. That is something different.

Therefore, we are NOT on the "same footing" because the burden of proof lays upon he who makes the claim (in this case yourself who is making the claim that a supernatural god exists), and if all evidence failed to prove anything (for anyone) then the intellectually honest answer would be "I don't know" - not "God did it".

I agree there is zero material/empirical evidence for God, which puts it neck and neck with any other explanation for the universe doesn't it?

What's not even for me are other forms of evidence; the power of explanation, predictive ability

The problem with your thinking is that you see the denial of a god as an opposing explanation of the universe. It is not. No one here has claimed to know exactly how the universe came about (only theists do that), we simply see no reason to inject a god into the scenario. I'm OK with not knowing how everything got here.

Take meteors, earthquakes, volcanoes: 100 years ago I'd have to concede that atheists had a pretty good point back then, what greater good possibly comes from such pointless random destruction? Now of course we know these things are utterly essential to the formation, support and renewal of our habitat. Some other 'tragedies' may still appear pointless from our perspective. But isn't pointing only to those as yet unanswered an atheism of the gaps argument?

Saying natural disasters are necessary to "renew the habitat" is just a facet of the "fine tuning" argument, but don't you think a benevolent creator would have created a planet that doesn't require destruction for renewal? At the very least, can't he just let the folks in the affected area know to get the heck out of there before he does any "renewing"[1]?

On a similar note, it sure would have been nice if he'd had the decency to make, I don't know, a gas leak happen (hope you're reading this, Wayne) in that factory in Bangladesh so it would have been evacuated and empty when it collapsed. Oh wait, those people weren't xtians! Never mind.

Logged

Providing rednecks with sunblock since 1996.

I once met a man who claimed to be a genius, then boasted that he was a member of "Mesa".

I don't knock science at all, I'm a huge fan. it has debunked every testable atheist model for the universe so far and supported all the major predictions of theism. I knock atheist academics who use dogma, not science to operate on preconceived conclusions about the ultimate nature of the universe-

You make a lot of good points that deserve an answer and I'd much rather do this than work!- but must run, will respond later- appreciate the civil debate

Once again, this post shows that you are misrepresenting what atheism is. It would be like trying to talk about non-astrologers and what they do in their job at a hospital. Non-astrology has nothing to do with any other subject except astrology, just like atheism has nothing to do with any other subject accept the question of whether a god exists. You are wrongfully conflating two things. Instead of assuming what our position is, why not just ask us?

Finally, it's interesting to me how you said, "I knock atheist academics who use dogma, not science to operate on preconceived conclusions about the ultimate nature of the universe". What "atheist academics" are you talking about? It seems that you really do not understand what science is about? Have you taken any science courses? How much science do you understand - b/c atheism literally has nothing to do with say biology. Science deals with what is DEMONSTRABLE, what can be tested, what can be predicted, and what is falsifiable. Is the god you believe in demonstrable? If so, please demonstrate - b/c so far all we've seen here are CLAIMS about a god, without evidence. There is no "atheist science". There is just science (roughly - the study of the demonstrable world in and around us).

As others have brought up, I'd be very interested in these "predictions of theism" of which you speak. Are you talking general theism (which includes Islam), or what?

That is not surprising. In our society blind faith is seen as a virtue. People are indoctrinated into that concecption of it from a very young age. Wey are told that believing ridiculous ideas that have no merit is a good thing. We are told that you can will yourself into believing these things if you just try hard enough. For example, the embarrassingly bad children's movie, Polar Express. A kid who does not believe in Santa (rightly so) somehow wills himself to have faith. How is that a very good thing? Priming young minds for stupid ideas. Everyone who had anything to do with that film should be caged.

I'd like to see a film about a kid who figures out there is no such thing as Santa and is celebrated for being so smart. Good job, kid. Can you connect the dots? What other bullshit have you been told? No tooth faerie, no easter bunny, no leprechauns, no angels, no baby jesus, no god. Very good, you are a becoming an adult now. We'll talk about other, more mundane myths as you get older. That is the movie we need.

Faith - the kind we are talking about - is a terrible thing. It is the antithesis of rationality. It is saying you know things without any basis. Faith is nothing more than unwarranted certitude, proud ignorance.

Faith is the reason more than a hundred thousand lives and a trillion dollars were wasted in Iraq. Faith is the reason thousands of women were burned as witches. Faith is the reason parents murder their children, either because they are told to fear vaccines or because they think god will magically cure their infections.

It is a menace to all life on this planet and I despise the fact that it is promoted as "a very good thing".

So, Guy, are you going to try to wash the stank of faith off yourself? Are you going to attempt to reverse the indoctrination you have received that has held you back?

Guy is playing the "be vague and sound philosophical" game here. He won't say anything that we can pin down. He won't define his religion, describe his god or show us his evidence. Then he can wave away anything we say in response with "That is not what I meant to say".

I am a very concrete person (earth science and social work and overseas development background and all) so that kind of vague meaningless sh!t don't fly with me. I don't believe in anything magical or supernatural--there are no invisible undetectable beings who affect the universe. I don't think there are any gods, spirits, fairies or ghosts. Until someone shows up with some real concrete evidence of same. Then I will change my mind.

Guy, what do you mean by "god"? Describe it. What kind of theist are you? Define it. What evidence supports the existence of the god you have described? Present it.

If you can't do those things, just admit that you don't know what you are talking about and are just blowing smoke. That's okay. We can still play nice and have fun here. But stop jerking us around with this pseudo-scientific crap. It's annoying.

I have faith in the Santa Clause myth, as I have presented it to my daughter. I told her that many years ago, there was a good man, named St. Nicholas, who gave presents to poor people he didn't know. And that on the darkest night of the year,[1] we celebrate his generosity by giving presents to the people we love.

In spite of the fact that I NEVER told her Santa Clause was real, she chose to believe. On her 5 year old Christmas, she demanded that we bake cookies for Santa and leave milk and carrots for the reindeer. I acquiesced. Shortly after her 6 year old Christmas, she asked me if there was really a Santa Clause, or if I left the presents under the tree. I asked her what she thought, and she became really frustrated. She said that she didn't think that reindeer could fly, or that Santa could get to everyone's house on one night, and why didn't Santa bring presents to her Jewish and Muslim and Hindu friends. When I asked her again what she thought, she became angry and said "JUST TELL ME THE TRUTH!" And I did. She went and sat in the closet and cried a little bit. And then she came out and asked me lots of other questions. The last of which was whether or not there would be presents under the tree next year. I assured her that there would be.

She enjoyed the magic for a few years, in spite of the fact that I never told her that Santa Clause was real.

It almost seems as if we, as children, are hard wired to have this "faith." As if it is a developmental stage. And then we are hard wired to ask questions. To think. To analyze.

Religions used to answer questions that we didn't know the answers to, like "why did this flood, drought, earthquake, monsoon, destroy my livelihood?" and "what are the stars and how were they created?" and "why is the plague spreading?" but now we know the answers to most of the questions that used to be answered by stories of feuding deities or an angry god or dozens of creating myths.

So when evidence contradicts the stories that form the basis of a religion, all that is left is FAITH.

The faith which all toddlers seem hardwired to believe in but which we should really outgrow by the time that we really embrace the reality that there are not monsters hiding under our beds.

The following is a post by Guybrush Threepwood that he put in another thread. However, it was on the topic being discussed here and after telling him he needed to be sure he kept his arguments on any one subject in one thread, I didn't feel that I should then turn around and respond in the other thread.

it is 'meritorious' to acknowledge your personal faith, that you have no proof for that belief. that's what I'm asking you re. your belief in atheism- however strong it may be, I suppose it's a sliding scale , I'd consider myself about 85% leaning towards God- how about you? I have no problem with alternative theories, alternatives are always needed to compare, I just don't consider them very plausible

What is so great or meritorious about believing in something without proof?

I do not believe in any gods. I see no evidence of their existence so I do not believe in them. Atheism, is just that - lack of belief in gods. Essentially, compared with you Guybush, I lack belief in one less god than you on the assumption that you only accept one god and have no belief in the other thousands of gods that have been and still are worshipped.

Once again, I'm saying that if you DO believe something without proof, be it God or the multiverse, it is meritorious to acknowledge that belief rather than claim supreme knowledge superior to everyone elses

My bold

Yep, I agree completely. If one believes something without proof, be it pro-god or otherwise, that then it is indeed a belief.

But what part of this do you not understand Yes, there are multiple theories about the universe, from its creation to its ultimate fate. Yes there are discussions about multiple and even infinite universes. However, most of us here merely sit back and listen, well aware of the fact that none of them can be called a really, really good theory because we don't have enough information on the subject yet. And probably won't in our lifetimes. It is not of any ultimate use to us, on a day to day basis, to know the exact specs of the universe. It is interesting, it is very human to search, it is fun to read about, it is worthy of the dedication some in science give to the question, but the answers are not there. They can't be. We're too unaware of everything to be claiming we know that much.

And many of the old theories (steady state, for instance) were as good as they could muster 200 years ago. We've only known for sure what galaxies are for 90 years or so. Please don't haul out old science and blame it on today's living atheists.

We are always at a disadvantage when a newbie theist shows up and starts talking with us. That is because it takes us awhile to figure out which version of which religion that person adheres too. You are making it twice as hard by pretending you know where we stand and reacting in a way you see as appropriate.

If you are going to diss us, wouldn't it be nicer to be dissing us for the right reasons?

Also like the child, our understanding grows, we learn to accept good and bad consequences and the vital part they play in our lives.

The analogy fails because a child's understanding grows to equal that of an adult. Are you now reversing your stance to say that the wisest people are able to understand the consequences of tragedies at a level on par with god? Or are you just trying to support a failed analogy?

Take meteors, earthquakes, volcanoes: 100 years ago I'd have to concede that atheists had a pretty good point back then, what greater good possibly comes from such pointless random destruction? Now of course we know these things are utterly essential to the formation, support and renewal of our habitat. Some other 'tragedies' may still appear pointless from our perspective. But isn't pointing only to those as yet unanswered an atheism of the gaps argument?

No. First, all tragedies are pointless and always will be. People can learn from them and change things but that does not change the tragedy into something good; it remains a horrific event. Second, meteors, earthquakes and volcanoes are not "essential". Looking back we can see that those things were crucial for us to be here now. But crucial is not the same as essential – there are subtle but real differences. Earthquakes and volcanoes are a part of the tectonic cycle and play a part in the world but you need to read up a bit more – or work on your understanding.

I don't see the contradiction in the analogy here- our own children are very much made in our image are they not? Are they then born with all our understanding or do they have to figure it out themselves with our guidance?

No wonder you are a theist if these questions represent your level of comprehension. Try rereading my post and you'll see that these questions are a nonsensical response.

I think the analogy also holds for your last point; many children feel a similar sense of injustice and persecution because they have to stay in and do homework instead of playing all day.

So you are equating the death of between 230 and 310 thousand[1] people in the tsunami on Sunday, December 26, 2004 to having to stay in and do homework? No. It's more like Daddy using a potato peeler to remove most of your foot by slowly shaving it away. Explain how Daddy's actions are good.

By 1951, Pope Pius XII declared that Lemaître's theory provided a scientific validation for Creationism and Catholicism. However, Lemaître resented the Pope's proclamation. When Lemaître and Daniel O'Connell, the Pope's science advisor, tried to persuade the Pope not to mention Creationism publicly anymore, the Pope agreed. He convinced the Pope to stop making proclamations about cosmology. While a devoted Roman Catholic, he was against mixing science with religion. ...Einstein found {the theory} suspect because he deemed it unjustifiable from a physical point of view. On the other hand, Einstein encouraged Lemaître to look into the possibility of models of non-isotropic expansion, so it is clear he was not altogether dismissive of the concept. He also appreciated Lemaître's argument that a static-Einstein model of the universe could not be sustained indefinitely into the past. ...Nevertheless, Lemaître's theory changed the course of cosmology. This was because Lemaître:* Was well acquainted with the work of astronomers, and designed his theory to have testable implications and to be in accord with observations of the time, in particular to explain the observed redshift of galaxies and the linear relation between distances and velocities;* Proposed his theory at an opportune time, since Edwin Hubble would soon publish his velocity-distance relation that strongly supported an expanding universe and, consequently, the Big Bang theory;* Had studied under Arthur Eddington, who made sure that Lemaître got a hearing in the scientific community.

Lemaître's mathematics was what didn't fail him when he was developing his "hypothesis of the primeval atom" - Einstein even complimented him on his mathematics. His faith did not result in success with his work on the Big Bang Theory; he succeeded because he did the work as a scientist. Please use facts not your wild guesses.

Logged

Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

Yeah, pain, suffering and death are like kids having to do their homework instead of playing outside. Right. Are bad things actually good because they are caused by god? And if that is the attitude, why bother to ever change or improve anything?

It is so aggravating when theists try to justify or explain away all the bad things that happen. If there is someone in charge of the universe, and they made all the good stuff, they are also responsible for the bad stuff. We can't just wave it away and say, well, we don't know what it all means, but the bad stuff has to be ultimately good.

What is good about millions of children and babies dying of preventable causes, or millions of people suffering from disasters that devastate them and ruin their lives? What is good about dementia and other serious mental problems that destroy families?

So after thousands of years, we have finally been able to eliminate polio and smallpox. What was the point of all the people who suffered and died from those diseases before we could cure and prevent them? Were smallpox and polio good things? If there was some point to the suffering, why would god allow us to eliminate them? We humans struggle to figure out the causes of these things and fix them as well as we can. And we make life better. No help from any supreme ultimate beings.

Can you dismiss other religions and peoples of the ramifications of #3 or are they just liars?

Do their gods exist using the same statement?

No they could not just be dismissed without investigation. And even though there are different beliefs about God it is the common belief among them all that there is a God that I think is the most worthy of investigation.

Then I will investigate it for you!

By definition a religion is something that has a god. Therefore all religions have gods. That is why "it is the common belief among them all that there is a God".

It is not only common, it is essential.

It is as if I said, "Amongst redheads, the common hair color is ginger. I think is the most worthy of investigation."

Sir, you do not think too clearly, do you?

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Take meteors, earthquakes, volcanoes: 100 years ago I'd have to concede that atheists had a pretty good point back then, what greater good possibly comes from such pointless random destruction? Now of course we know these things are utterly essential to the formation, support and renewal of our habitat.

Just a tip. You might give us your sources on this stuff. Otherwise we might start thinking you are a bit looney.

I think denying faith, claiming supreme knowledge, intellectual superiority is where it gets dangerous when applied to any belief, theistic or atheistic?-

Are you saying that denying faith equates to a claim of supreme knowledge?

Atheism is not a belief - it's simply an acknowledgement of the logical implications that there is no convincing evidence for the existence of gods. And the fun part of atheism is analysing the bizarre behaviours and excusiology of theists claiming to be in possession of supreme knowledge I don't see how poking fun at theists and shredding their books and beliefs with reason is "dangerous".

In the sense that if one doesn't recognize any element of faith in one's own belief, one is laboring under the misconception that one doesn't have faith, that one's beliefs are based 100% on evidence. I think this is dangerous because, as seen throughout history, this perception of supreme knowledge can be used as justification to ram it down everyone else's throats for their 'own good' whether that belief is atheist or theist . Would you not agree?

'Atheism is not a belief - it's simply an acknowledgement of the logical implications that there is no convincing evidence for the existence of gods.'By that exact same rationale I could say 'theism is not a belief - it's simply an acknowledgement of the logical implications that there is no convincing evidence for the existence of spontaneous automated universe creating mechanisms'

framing your belief as a 'default' explanation is just a way to avoid having to give evidence for that belief- to put the burden of proof on everyone but yourself. That's why theists don't take this 'default' stance, because they are willing and able to defend their beliefs on it's own merits, rather than simply poking holes in atheism